Log in

View Full Version : how brainwashed people have become - this is truely sad



sypher
27th May 2003, 22:44
Just today i was talking to someone who believed not only that sweatshops were not bad but that they helped the economy. he wwas doing a speech on it aswell. This is the paper he gave me as his arguement.


Dan Scovill
Sweatshop Paper
Sweatshops, a Bad Thing?

An analysis of the use and importance of sweat shops that exist in the world.

We as a society are constantly asking, “Why do sweatshops exist?”The answer to this question is that companies like Nike and Walmart use sweatshops to produce their goods for a much cheaper rate thus raising their profit margin.The problem people have with sweatshops is that the workers that labor in these places work very hard in poor conditions for very little money.But although people may condemn sweatshops there are some realities that we need to analyze to fully understand this topic.Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn make a statement in their article “Two Cheers for Sweatshops” that sums up nicely the misunderstanding of the modern world.“Yet sweatshops that seem brutal from the vantage point of an American sitting in his living room can appear tantalizing to a Thai laborer getting by on beetles.”[1]The fact of the matter is that sweatshops in the eyes of the actual workers are not as bad as they are made out to be.

Many organizations like sweatshopwatch.org and sweatshops.org make the point that sweatshops do not have to exist with statements like, “…sweat shops are not inevitable.”[2]But the truth is that it would not be a healthy thing for the world’s economy if they did not exist.The companies that use sweatshops are creating jobs for people that would not other wise have them.It is better for these people to have jobs that may be low paying and difficult rather then no jobs at all.People in these countries are astounded when they hear that American’s boycott from buying the clothes that they make in the sweatshops.Kristof and Wudunn state in their article that, “The simplest way to help the poorest Asians would be to buy more from sweatshops, not less.”[3]This statement shows us that we really do not have a clean grasp on what we think the problems with the sweatshops in the world today are.

Although the reason why we are so against these sweatshops is because of the terrible atrocities that do unfortunately and indeed occur.But these occurrences are in a much smaller number then the public assumes.Sweatshops are slowly but surely becoming better work places because the shop managers are trying to attract and keep the best, hardest-working laborers.[4]In Dongguan, China wages have risen from about $50 a month to about $250 a month.[5]A trace of a middle class society is also starting to emerge with the arrival of private housing market, video arcades, and computer schools.[6]Since in these third world countries the economy is so poor compared to ours, the dollar goes a lot further.Kristof and Wudunn describe the breakfast of the average Chinese worker.“For the equivalent of about 5 cents, she offered a huge green mango leaf filled with rice, fish paste and fried beetles. It was a hearty breakfast, if one didn't mind the odd antenna left sticking in one's teeth.”[7]This shows us that even though there is no way in the world any of us would be able to survive on $2 a week it is very possible for the average Chinese worker.

One major factor that has to be considered in this argument is the fact that workers in China do not have to pay as much for their everyday goods and they do not have as many expenses as we do in America.Say an American that makes a hefty $104,000 a year spends about an average of $20 a day on food.That would equal $140 a week, which would equal 7% of the hefty weekly income of $2000.If a Chinese worker spends only $0.05 per meal it would equal $1.05 per week.If this worker’s salary is $2 per day and he or she works seven days a week their salary would be $14 a week.This would leave them spending 7.5% of their money on food.This is almost the same as the rich American.With time these numbers will continue to get better because the Asian economy is continuing to grow and become stronger with the help of sweatshops.[8]

Besides the fact that sweatshops are helping the overall economy of Asia, they are also helping the individual people of this large region.Kristof and Wudunn tell the story of a Cambodian woman, Nhem Yen who lived in a region of Cambodia that was extremely rampant with malaria and she could not afford the $5 (2.5 days of labor) Mosquito net to protect her children.[9]Her daughter and son-in-law both died because of this.If there had been another sweatshop in her area she would have been able to purchase a net and save her family.

A perfect example that shows that sweatshops are working to help the economies lies within a decision made by India fifty years ago.Kristof and Wudunn describe a situation regarding the way sweatshops effect economies:

“For all the misery they can engender, sweatshops at least offer a precarious escape from the poverty that is the developing world's greatest problem. Over the past 50 years, countries like India resisted foreign exploitation, while countries that started at a similar economic level -- like Taiwan and South Korea -- accepted sweatshops as the price of development. Today there can be no doubt about which approach worked better. Taiwan and South Korea are modern countries with low rates of infant mortality and high levels of education; in contrast, every year 3.1 million Indian children die before the age of 5, mostly from diseases of poverty like diarrhea.”[10]

The world must realize that there are always going to be places in the world that are not as prosperous as others.These will always be the places in the world that work harder and make less money.This happens even within the confines of our society today.For example, a construction worker may work much harder then a plastic surgeon that works a quarter of the hours and makes five times as much money.It is always based on the amount of schooling and education that one receives and since third world countries do not yet have the education that we do they will continue to do hard labor.However since these economies are continuing to grow they are also becoming more educated and thus they will someday not have an economy based around nothing but hard labor.

Although the conditions of many of these sweatshops are harsh and severe they still need to exist.Without them the economies of these countries would be non-existent.They would not be growing the way they are right now.People would be suffering even more then they already are.Sweatshops cannot and should not be removed from our world.They are essential to the survival of the delicate balance that is the world economy.Many of the brutal sweatshops are being changed to offer more accommodating conditions.[11]This is a major reason why they are so beneficial to the economies of these countries, because the workers want to work hard so that they can make money without as many risks as they used to have to deal with.They are without a doubt a necessary evil of our society.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[2] http://www.coopamerica.org/sweatshops/sswh...ysweatshops.htm (http://www.coopamerica.org/sweatshops/sswhysweatshops.htm)
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[7] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[8] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[10] http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/ho...sweatshops.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)
[11]http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html




Of course I shot down all of his points and tried to help him see what is really happening in the world but, I don't think it helped any...too bad

(Edited by sypher at 4:46 am on May 28, 2003)

redstar2000
27th May 2003, 23:49
It is very much along the lines of pieces I have read that argued that American slavery was "good" for Africans...it "civilized" them and saved their "souls".

It is really quite amazing that so many "justifications" can be found for the indefensible...by those who have something to gain.

:cool:

Pete
28th May 2003, 00:40
Notice how 10 of the sources come from the exact same article?

But I have faced this arguement. The main point is always "someone has to do it." That is still no excuse for sweat shops, but sadly their are many sweatshops in existance, I know of a few in Toronto (that have been busted). Wage slavery is still slavery.

Kwisatz Haderach
28th May 2003, 09:34
Sweeping aside all the propagandistic crap, what he really means to say is "sweatshops are good because I can profit from slave labour".

That is, a more brutal form of the same slave labour used by the bourgeoisie everywhere.

sypher
28th May 2003, 22:46
How exactly do to enlighten these people who believe sweatshops are good?

chamo
28th May 2003, 23:04
People with that kind of moral stance are very set in their disillusioned views. They're usually not work debating with. Big guns usually work best.

Incase you can't get any big guns, "shock an' awe" usually works best. Divulge information on how bad the conditions and pay are for the average worker so that we can live in comparative luxary, and how much they are paid compared to how much the item is sold for.

Sweatshops are probably the biggest enemy of leftists and Marxists. They are the very problem of the conditions people have to work in in order to bring dozens of times the amount of money to the employer and the Western economy.

Organic Revolution
30th May 2003, 00:24
that paper is the most brainwashed peice of shit i have ever seen... does he were nike by the way ;)

Dirty Commie
30th May 2003, 02:19
Reading that nearly made me explode...some people are beyond hopeless.

Veni Vidi Vici
1st June 2003, 14:36
Quote: from rise up on 12:24 am on May 30, 2003
that paper is the most brainwashed peice of shit i have ever seen... does he were nike by the way ;)


I agree, it seems brainwashing. My stupid friend would probably agree with it.

Blibblob
1st June 2003, 15:00
Incase you can't get any big guns, "shock an' awe" usually works best. Divulge information on how bad the conditions and pay are for the average worker so that we can live in comparative luxary, and how much they are paid compared to how much the item is sold for.
Right in the begining of his article. He said he didn't care that they had crappy lives so we could have good ones. He said that it was good to them. We can go on and on about how people don't deserve to be treated that way, and they will always return to "it is the highest paying job in the area". It shouldn't be, but it is not worth arguing(they tend to not debate well) with them, they are just a bunch of pig nosed sheltered Americans.

mentalbunny
3rd June 2003, 22:42
Well people just have no sense of humanity these days! That's all I can say and I can't think of any way to combat it, I'm afraid. Just bring up your kids to be human and love the truth, that's the best you can do.

187
4th June 2003, 01:24
I was having an argument with my uncle about this very topic. He is in international business and has himself seen these sweatshops first hand. I was arguing in favor of(at bare minimum) a living wage and decent working conditions, while he would argue that the pay was sufficient becuase of certain perks for working with the sweat shop:

- Ones he visitied recieved dental and medical care from an onsite doctor at company sponsered picnics
- Two meals a day plus food to bring home to their families.
- Working conditions were decent(building not dilapidated, workers wore proper equipment etc.)

Also, a USAID employee happened to be there and argued that the main concern should be with working conditions as they can be extremley hazardous to the workers. He sayed that the money that they do receive is relativley good, and that ending sweatshop labor completley would be detrimental to everyone.

Vinny Rafarino
7th June 2003, 04:06
Some people cannot be enlightened. These people are not fit to lick the filth off my boot. They are useless to society and deserve serious "re-education".

(Comrade Redstar should have a field day with this one)

-Jules

Blibblob
7th June 2003, 15:02
187, did your uncle really think they would show him the real sweatshops and not their manufactured ones just to show off? And where were these "sweatshops"?

mentalbunny
7th June 2003, 19:17
Well I suppose it depends on what you mean by sweatshop. I generally see them as places where people have to work in poor conditions for long hours for a barely survivable wage. I'm sorry, I don't have any good definitions, does anyone else?

canikickit
7th June 2003, 20:03
Yeah, the dictionary:

": a shop or factory in which workers are employed for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions "

Why don't people use the dictionary on this site?

Dr. Rosenpenis
7th June 2003, 21:08
187, this is not a sweatshop, it is a factory.

This mislead bastard who wrote that disgusting piece of filth is hopefuly referring to factories as well, not sweatshops.

When i think of sweatshop, I think of the imense factories in the third-world set up by imensily wealthy american multi-nationals, where the workers are paid miserable amounts, while creating, with their nearly valueless labour, millions for some wealthy bastard. The workers will not protset the poor working conditions, in fear of being replaced, because these nations have huge numbers of unemployed people who would gladly work for anything.

It is fundamentaly impossible for there to be a sweatshop in the first world.

187
8th June 2003, 01:01
"187, did your uncle really think they would show him the real sweatshops and not their manufactured ones just to show off?"

Yeah I agree, and infact I asked him about that. No good answer....

And where were these "sweatshops"?"

The "sweatshops" or factories that would be considered by american standards to be sub-par were located in nearly all the asian countries as well as mexico and south america.


They still don't receive a living wage, and they work very long hours. I think that classifies as some sort of sweatshop don't you agree cani?

Som
8th June 2003, 01:18
- Ones he visitied recieved dental and medical care from an onsite doctor at company sponsered picnics
- Two meals a day plus food to bring home to their families.
- Working conditions were decent(building not dilapidated, workers wore proper equipment etc.)

These seem pretty rational niceties from the point of view of the ones profitting off of them, because basically, sick, hungry and well..dead workers aren't very profitable. So they keep them reasonably sustained, they keep them alive.

Of course these 'perks' still don't bother to leave them any time to live a life they can't afford, because it puts some pennies in the pockets of the wealthiest shareholders and CEOs. They're not as much in the buisness of ending lives, as taking them.

Why don't people use the dictionary on this site?

I think the dictionary makes us all a nervous when it says things like:
communism
A totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a classless society.

187
8th June 2003, 01:29
"These seem pretty rational niceties from the point of view of the ones profitting off of them, because basically, sick, hungry and well..dead workers aren't very profitable. So they keep them reasonably sustained, they keep them alive."

Chances are they wouldn't see any of these 'perks' outside of the job though.

187
8th June 2003, 01:38
"I think the dictionary makes us all a nervous when it says things like:
communism
A totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a classless society. "

LOL. You might need to buy a new dictionary.

From an acutal dictionary:

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Otherwised known as dictionary.com (http://dictionary.com)
I think that's fair don't you?

(Edited by 187 at 1:40 am on June 8, 2003)

Som
8th June 2003, 01:40
Chances are they wouldn't see any of these 'perks' outside of the job though.

And thats why we're socialists. Its no excuse to treat people like slaves.

Its the same argument for slavery as well, that because they're owned, their masters will care for them and treat them better then if they were free.

Its a crap justification, they're still slaves.

LOL. You might need to buy a new dictionary.

From an acutal dictionary:

Yea, that ones not so bad, actually picked off the link on there to the other one just for the show.

The dictionaries just have a tendency to... screw around with things.

(Edited by Som at 1:43 am on June 8, 2003)

Blibblob
8th June 2003, 02:44
Well... who do you think makes dictionarys? Capitalists or Socialists? If we made them, they'd be slanted our way.

187
8th June 2003, 05:35
"Well... who do you think makes dictionarys? Capitalists or Socialists? If we made them, they'd be slanted our way."

Which way was dictionary.com's definition slanted?

Dr. Rosenpenis
8th June 2003, 06:43
Quote: from 187 on 11:35 pm on June 7, 2003
"Well... who do you think makes dictionarys? Capitalists or Socialists? If we made them, they'd be slanted our way."

Which way was dictionary.com's definition slanted?

it wasn't

187
8th June 2003, 18:43
exactly

Som
8th June 2003, 21:16
The dictionary thing was trivial, wasn't meant to actually have an opinion on it.


(Edited by Som at 9:17 pm on June 8, 2003)

sglb
10th June 2003, 01:18
oh god. the immorality of this disgusts me, and what bothers me further is that so-called 'people' actually beleive in this cruel practice.